Topology of Violence by Byung-Chul Han

Author:Byung-Chul Han [Han, Byung-Chul]
Language: eng
Format: azw3
Tags: Philosophy, Psychology, Nonfiction
ISBN: 9780262534956
Publisher: The MIT Press
Published: 2011-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

II The Micro-physics of Violence

6. Systematic Violence

The situation in which an act of violence occurs often arises from the system and the systematic structure in which it is embedded. Thus, manifest, expressive forms of violence can be traced back to these implicit structures, which establish and stabilize a system of domination but which withdraw from visibility. Johan Galtung’s theory of “structural violence” is also based on the assumption of the structural mediation of violence. Structures built into the social system ensure that conditions of injustice are perpetuated. They codify unequal relations of power and the unequal opportunities that result from them without revealing their true nature.1 Because of their invisibility, the victims of the ruling system’s violence may not be directly aware of it. That is what makes it so efficient.

Galtung bases his thought on a very broad conception of violence: “… violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations.”2 The negativity of deprivation is fundamental to structural violence, preventing a fair distribution of resources and opportunities. This conception of violence is too general. It doesn’t capture the aspect that actually defines violence and distinguishes it from other negative social influences. The fact that working-class children have worse educational opportunities than upper-class children isn’t violence but rather injustice. If violence is used as shorthand for general social negativity, the contours of the idea become hazy.

Galtung’s concept of violence fails to grasp the difference between power and violence. Thus he attributes violence to the hierarchies and orders that are the basis of power and ruling relationships. The oppressed are “deprived because the structure deprives them of chances to organize and bring their power to bear against the top dogs. …”3 The social structures don’t give resistance any chance to develop. One must correctly conclude that it is possible to rule without exercising violence. Structural violence is not violence in the strict sense of the word. Rather, it is a rulership technique. It makes it possible to rule discreetly and much more efficiently than ruling by violence.

Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence” also dwells within the social system itself. It inscribes itself in the habitual patterns of perception and behavior, which are accepted and repeated unquestioned. One affirms and perpetuates power relations when one habitually does what is respectable. Banality is the affirmation of the established power relations. Symbolic violence ensures that the order of rule is maintained without requiring the expenditure of physical violence. In this case, the affirmation of the ruling order is not conscious but rather reflexive and prereflective. Symbolic violence collapses comprehension of what is into compliance with rule. It stabilizes power relations very effectively because it makes them seem natural, like a fact that is questioned by no one, something that is-the-way-it-is.

Bourdieu also fails to differentiate clearly between power and violence. He uses power and violence almost synonymously: “All power has a symbolic dimension: it must receive a form of assent from those ruled, which is not based

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.